Full Member

Joined

Jul 17, 2015

Messages

4,370

Good news for us if we can muster up a strong second half season but Chelsea seem to be out of reach once things even out. I doubt Spurs can keep up the results like they did maybe the time before last that Kane was out?

Online influencer who has never watched Star Wars

Those statistics reveal nothing of the sort they are claiming. What is the point of comparing a percentage of games completed between Jesus (18 starts) and Kane (47 starts)? How many of Salah's 22 substutions happened before the 75th minute and how many happened after the 90th minute?

Kane over the last 2 seasons has played 4207 minutes in the Premier League whereas Salah has played 4707.

So Kane is averaging 89.5 minutes per start whereas Salah is averaging 87.1 minutes per start yet Salah is at the bottom of that list with 59% of games completed.

Absolutely shite journalism and a perfect example of how statistics can be misunderstood.

Full Member

I was looking at Kieron Trippier's appearance record before and in the 4 seasons efore he joined Spurs he appeared in near to 100% of league games for Burnley. At Spurs he seemed to be injured a fair bit but now he's at Madrid he's been available for 100% of their games this season.

Full Member

Those statistics reveal nothing of the sort they are claiming. What is the point of comparing a percentage of games completed between Jesus (18 starts) and Kane (47 starts)? How many of Salah's 22 substutions happened before the 75th minute and how many happened after the 90th minute?

Kane over the last 2 seasons has played 4207 minutes in the Premier League whereas Salah has played 4707.

So Kane is averaging 89.5 minutes per start whereas Salah is averaging 87.1 minutes per start yet Salah is at the bottom of that list with 59% of games completed.

Absolutely shite journalism and a perfect example of how statistics can be misunderstood.

Full Member

Those statistics reveal nothing of the sort they are claiming. What is the point of comparing a percentage of games completed between Jesus (18 starts) and Kane (47 starts)? How many of Salah's 22 substutions happened before the 75th minute and how many happened after the 90th minute?

Kane over the last 2 seasons has played 4207 minutes in the Premier League whereas Salah has played 4707.

So Kane is averaging 89.5 minutes per start whereas Salah is averaging 87.1 minutes per start yet Salah is at the bottom of that list with 59% of games completed.

Absolutely shite journalism and a perfect example of how statistics can be misunderstood.

New Member

Erm, missing till end of March means he also won't play against City (if you care about the title race) and he won't play against Chelsea and Utd (if you care about the Top 4 race). He may be back for Arsenal, so they're the only ones who have any right to moan even a little bit like this.

Online influencer who has never watched Star Wars

And? That's the reason they have ran the article but it's completely irrelevant to the statistics they've produced. Salah started 37 out of the 38 matches last season and came on as a sub in one and yet averaged 85mins per match. The fewest minutes he played all season was 24 which was the only sub appearance for him.

So by The Telegraph's logic there, Salah should be burnt out and injured all the time because he's being completely overworked but their terrible use of statistics completely hides how much Salah was used last season and instead represents him as someone who had their game time managed perfectly and was kept fresh all season which is absolutely not the case. He was in the Top 25 minutes played last season with the list of players above him including 10 goalkeepers, and only 2 other attacking players.

Kane appeared in 40 matches for Spurs last season. Salah appeared in 52 matches but both with roughly the same minutes, doesn't that support the assertion that Salah's minutes were better managed for his fitness?

And? That's the reason they have ran the article but it's completely irrelevant to the statistics they've produced. Salah started 37 out of the 38 matches last season and came on as a sub in one and yet averaged 85mins per match. The fewest minutes he played all season was 24 which was the only sub appearance for him.

So by The Telegraph's logic there, Salah should be burnt out and injured all the time because he's being completely overworked but their terrible use of statistics completely hides how much Salah was used last season and instead represents him as someone who had their game time managed perfectly and was kept fresh all season which is absolutely not the case. He was in the Top 25 minutes played last season with the list of players above him including 10 goalkeepers, and only 2 other attacking players.

Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised

Which proves that he's injury prone or at most that he's not build to sustain his workload. The headline seems to claim that such a workload is unsustainable in itself, while the list provided actually proves that it certainly isn't (Salah and Mane as prime examples).

Full Member

Kane appeared in 40 matches for Spurs last season. Salah appeared in 52 matches but both with roughly the same minutes, doesn't that support the assertion that Salah's minutes were better managed for his fitness?

3342 minutes vs 4342 also isn't roughly the same, it's a big difference. They were both basically starting every possible PL/CL game, they both had a roughly equal percentage of possible minutes played.
Would you have guessed that looking at the Telegraph's table though?

Looking at Kane's injury history it's a fair question to ask whether he specifically has a problem to cope with his intense schedule and whether he might need more rests. But the journo tries to turn a question into an accusation with some statistical bullshitting.

A perfectly reasonable assertion that falls to pieces when you question how playing on average 85mins per game is better game management than playing on average 87mins per game. Salah was subbed just 6 times last season. This season he’s been subbed off 9 times (so no idea where the 22 comes from) of which 3 have been after the 90th minute and 2 after the 85th.

Is missing the last few minutes of a match every 2 or 3 weeks supposed to be the key to not being injured?

Kanes injuries have nothing to do with what they are suggesting, there’s loads and loads of players who play virtually every minute of every game for their clubs and don't fall to pieces because of it. Kane’s problem is his natural fitness and how naturally supple and robust his muscles and joints are.

3342 minutes vs 4342 also isn't roughly the same, it's a big difference. They were both basically starting every possible PL/CL game, they both had a roughly equal percentage of possible minutes played.
Would you have guessed that looking at the Telegraph's table though?

Looking at Kane's injury history it's a fair question to ask whether he specifically has a problem to cope with his intense schedule and whether he might need more rests. But the journo tries to turn a question into an accusation with some statistical bullshitting.

A perfectly reasonable assertion that falls to pieces when you question how playing on average 85mins per game is better game management than playing on average 87mins per game. Salah was subbed just 6 times last season. This season he’s been subbed off 9 times (so no idea where the 22 comes from) of which 3 have been after the 90th minute and 2 after the 85th.

Is missing the last few minutes of a match every 2 or 3 weeks supposed to be the key to not being injured?

Kanes injuries have nothing to do with what they are suggesting, there’s loads and loads of players who play virtually every minute of every game for their clubs and don't fall to pieces because of it. Kane’s problem is his natural fitness and how naturally supple and robust his muscles and joints are.

Fair points but I'd agree with the premise of the article in that there are questions to be asked if his minutes are being managed properly and as @do.ob mentions, that perhaps he does need to be rested more.

Saturday Night Spies

When did it happen before? Laporte was gone far earlier than when they played them. I think for us Pogba and Martial was still out too, but that was earlier. Leicester had everyone in that game too.
Which other team has lost a player just before they played them?

Martial came on as a sub against them I think but yes he was 100%. Pogba missed the game too as you mention.
Grealish got injured before they played Villa.
Ederson got injured before their game with City. We know how crap Bravo is.
Kane misses the game tomorrow.

Full Member

Fair points but I'd agree with the premise of the article in that there are questions to be asked if his minutes are being managed properly and as @do.ob mentions, that perhaps he does need to be rested more.

The problem with that article is that the journalist in question sees that Kane plays a lot and gets injured a lot, so he asks himself the obvious question whether the two are connected. Which is all fair. But since he's a pos sports journalist he can't just ask that simple question (to which the answer would be: "who knows, maybe he's playing too much, maybe it's just the way a body like his reacts to the demands of pro football - only his doctors might have an answer"), he has to create a piece that makes it look like Spurs are being reckless with Kane, putting him under an unsual amount of strain that no player could possibly sustain. So he creates some misleading piece of shit statistic (look!! Kane 87%!! vs Salah 59%!!)that makes it look like Klopp and Salah are god's gift to stress management, while Spurs are litereally THE WORST, so RECKLESS. When infact both are handled basically in a similar fashion.

Gerrard shirt..Anfield? You'll Never Live it Down

Which proves that he's injury prone or at most that he's not build to sustain his workload. The headline seems to claim that such a workload is unsustainable in itself, while the list provided actually proves that it certainly isn't (Salah and Mane as prime examples).

Full Member

A perfectly reasonable assertion that falls to pieces when you question how playing on average 85mins per game is better game management than playing on average 87mins per game. Salah was subbed just 6 times last season. This season he’s been subbed off 9 times (so no idea where the 22 comes from) of which 3 have been after the 90th minute and 2 after the 85th.

Is missing the last few minutes of a match every 2 or 3 weeks supposed to be the key to not being injured?

Kanes injuries have nothing to do with what they are suggesting, there’s loads and loads of players who play virtually every minute of every game for their clubs and don't fall to pieces because of it. Kane’s problem is his natural fitness and how naturally supple and robust his muscles and joints are.

Sometimes with injuries, you have to go back to previous injuries to get some context into the player's current injury. Harry Kane has been mismanaged by Spurs. He was rushed after his ankle injury every time and unsurprisingly he was injured again soon after on multiple occasions. Any half decent physio can tell you that even an ankle sprain increases probability of more ankle sprains in the future. A part of it is because the ligaments in ankles support entire body weight. Ankle rehabs should never be rushed. We did the same with Rooney in the past.

His current injury could very well be related to his ankle injuries which weren't given proper time to recover. On top of that, he's been clocking minutes without being subbed whenever he's available. Klopp finds a way to substitute Salah and Mane out for the last 10 mins of games, which is when most muscle injuries occur. Liverpool's success with injuries isn't "luck". They have coaching staff that understand injury risk and prevention.

Meet the press(conference)

Liverpool fan

So who are they going to get then to replace him? if he's out until April that's a big chunk of the football calendar gone, to carry on without him would be madness. We know they were chasing Dybala in the summer to add along with Kane but did they even replace Llorente when they let him go?

Full Member

So who are they going to get then to replace him? if he's out until April that's a big chunk of the football calendar gone, to carry on without him would be madness. We know they were chasing Dybala in the summer to add along with Kane but did they even replace Llorente when they let him go?

Definitely. He's Southgate's Rooney. A fit Vardy or Rashford is a much better option than a 95% fit Kane. With the strength in depth England have in attacking options there is no excuse for relying on Kane.

Full Member

Definitely. He's Southgate's Rooney. A fit Vardy or Rashford is a much better option than a 95% fit Kane. With the strength in depth England have in attacking options there is no excuse for relying on Kane.

New Member

Newbie

Joined

Jan 4, 2013

Messages

45

I find it astonishing that this guy still has doubters, reminds me of his early days when a significant amount of people refused to see just how good he was.
Very good chance he'll crank out another 30 plus goal season next year and make those doubters look a tad foolish. Again

Full Member

If he's not even going to start training til April what are the odds that he will be match fit & sharp for the Euros in June? He was a passenger in the CL final in May, last thing we need is that Harry Kane in the Euros.

I'm not saying drop him from the squad, but if he's not looking himself and given the abundance of English strikers banging the goals in this season, surely his starting place is in jeopardy?

This is what I'm fearful of also. At least in this case we'll have better back-up in Abraham, Rashford and potentially Ings though. In that World Cup we took an injured Rooney, an injured past it Owen, Crouch and 17 year old Walcott who wasn't even a centre forward. Unbelievably dumb from Sven both at the time and in hindsight. Should have been Crouch, Defoe, Bent and Rooney as the gamble.

Full Member

I find it astonishing that this guy still has doubters, reminds me of his early days when a significant amount of people refused to see just how good he was.
Very good chance he'll crank out another 30 plus goal season next year and make those doubters look a tad foolish. Again

I dont think there are too many doubters left. The sheer volume and rate at which he scores has silenced the unwashed masses. Hes had problems with injury recently, but then, Aguero has suffered through some lengthy injury stints during his career. And it hasnt harmed his reputation as one of the best strikers to have ever played in the league.

Meet the press(conference)

Full Member

If he's not even going to start training til April what are the odds that he will be match fit & sharp for the Euros in June? He was a passenger in the CL final in May, last thing we need is that Harry Kane in the Euros.

I'm not saying drop him from the squad, but if he's not looking himself and given the abundance of English strikers banging the goals in this season, surely his starting place is in jeopardy?

This is what I'm fearful of also. At least in this case we'll have better back-up in Abraham, Rashford and potentially Ings though. In that World Cup we took an injured Rooney, an injured past it Owen, Crouch and 17 year old Walcott who wasn't even a centre forward. Unbelievably dumb from Sven both at the time and in hindsight. Should have been Crouch, Defoe, Bent and Rooney as the gamble.